Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?

I was shocked by a post saying that it is not the U.S. police's constitutional duty to protect people as individuals, but the society as a whole.

I talked with my friends and they said this duty of protecting individuals was neither in the Chinese Constitution, and that it is the common spirit of criminal laws that the society as a whole rather than the individuals are protected by the police, and that there must be some law that says the U.S. police has the duty to protect individuals otherwise why bother having the police emergency number 911 you can call for help.

This is about the reason why so many U.S. citizens insisted on owning guns themselves other than trusting the police.

RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?

(04-04-2013 03:32 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote: I was shocked by a post saying that it is not the U.S. police's constitutional duty to protect people as individuals, but the society as a whole.

I talked with my friends and they said this duty of protecting individuals was neither in the Chinese Constitution, and that it is the common spirit of criminal laws that the society as a whole rather than the individuals are protected by the police, and that there must be some law that says the U.S. police has the duty to protect individuals otherwise why bother having the police emergency number 911 you can call for help.

This is about the reason why so many U.S. citizens insisted on owning guns themselves other than trusting the police.

Any more thoughts?

Asked and answered.

Court decisions in the U.S. have made it clear that police have no duty to protect the individual. Their duty is to keep the peace, to protect society.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?

(04-04-2013 05:23 AM)earmuffs Wrote: I think you are mistaking police for judicial system.

I am not. And I will explain with a hypothetical situation:

Late night. I walk in the streets without any weapon. A robber jumps out of the shadow and points a gun at me. A policeman sees this and doesn't do anything. The robber goes away with me money. And my question is:

(1) Can the policeman walk away without losing a law suit I may file against him about this?

(2) If he can't, then is it his duty to protect me, an 'individual', against felonies like robbery only, or against any kind of behavior that may disturb the public order in the day as well?

That's why I asked whether there was any law that said the police had the duty to protect individuals. If there are such law, then it will be unnecessary for those anti-gun-control folks to insist on carrying guns in most cases.

RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?

(04-04-2013 07:49 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:

(04-04-2013 05:23 AM)earmuffs Wrote: I think you are mistaking police for judicial system.

I am not. And I will explain with a hypothetical situation:

Late night. I walk in the streets without any weapon. A robber jumps out of the shadow and points a gun at me. A policeman sees this and doesn't do anything. The robber goes away with me money. And my question is:

(1) Can the policeman walk away without losing a law suit I may file against him about this?

(2) If he can't, then is it his duty to protect me, an 'individual', against felonies like robbery only, or against any kind of behavior that may disturb the public order in the day as well?

That's why I asked whether there was any law that said the police had the duty to protect individuals. If there are such law, then it will be unnecessary for those anti-gun-control folks to insist on carrying guns in most cases.

RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?

(04-04-2013 07:56 AM)Stark Raving Wrote: The officer would be obliged to intervene in the robbery, not because it is the law that they protect you, but because it is the law that they prevent the crime if it is safe to do so.

Police have a duty to uphold and enforce the law. The law is in place to protect both society AND the individual, with a priority placed on "the greater good".

I understand this 'police have a duty to uphold and enforce the law' part pretty well. So quite unnecessary for individuals to carry guns with them especially in cities where there are the police and the laws?

Just a little confused after TheBlackKnight told me that it wasn't the police forces' constitutional duty to protect American individuals and therefore people had to defend themselves by carrying guns.

BTW, the police in the States didn't enforce the gun-related laws so well, right?

RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?

(04-04-2013 08:34 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:

(04-04-2013 07:56 AM)Stark Raving Wrote: The officer would be obliged to intervene in the robbery, not because it is the law that they protect you, but because it is the law that they prevent the crime if it is safe to do so.

Police have a duty to uphold and enforce the law. The law is in place to protect both society AND the individual, with a priority placed on "the greater good".

I understand this 'police have a duty to uphold and enforce the law' part pretty well. So quite unnecessary for individuals to carry guns with them especially in cities where there are the police and the laws?

Just a little confused after TheBlackKnight told me that it wasn't the police forces' constitutional duty to protect American individuals and therefore people had to defend themselves by carrying guns.

BTW, the police in the States didn't enforce the gun-related laws so well, right?

I have a firearm because when seconds count, the police are mere minutes away.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?

(04-04-2013 03:32 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote: I was shocked by a post saying that it is not the U.S. police's constitutional duty to protect people as individuals, but the society as a whole.

I talked with my friends and they said this duty of protecting individuals was neither in the Chinese Constitution, and that it is the common spirit of criminal laws that the society as a whole rather than the individuals are protected by the police, and that there must be some law that says the U.S. police has the duty to protect individuals otherwise why bother having the police emergency number 911 you can call for help.

This is about the reason why so many U.S. citizens insisted on owning guns themselves other than trusting the police.

Any more thoughts?

This has gone before the US Supreme Court and their ruling is that Police have no duty to protect you. The 'Protect and to Serve' crap painted on the side of a cruiser is just feel good bullshit. They exist solely to maintain domestic peace and enforce the law.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."